Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Paidiske" data-source="post: 77679815" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>We've been over this. A dominance hierarchy is one where there are relationships of control. Differences of ability or the like are prestige hierarchies. </p><p></p><p>No; I am basically defining a dominance hierarchy as a relationship in which one person controls another. </p><p></p><p>I disagree. One person controlling another is basically exactly what abuse is. Remember this?</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]347815[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>That is not what we are talking about. See the above picture. </p><p></p><p>I have told you. Any control which is unnecessary or harmful is abusive. </p><p></p><p>That's too vague to be meaningful. We'd need to take each situation on its merits. But it would certainly need to be radically transformed. </p><p></p><p>Because my main concern in this thread is the abuse of children in the home, and clarifying every other possible situation under the sun is really off topic. </p><p></p><p>We remove the hierarchy from marriage and make it a partnership of equals. That's how we fix the broken system. </p><p></p><p>Not in the sense we are discussing here. In the sense we are discussing here, it is a power difference used to control. </p><p></p><p>If you are not arguing for control (much of which is unnecessary), why are you arguing for hierarchy?</p><p></p><p>I don't think we are speaking about "control" as the same thing, here. The kind of control that I am talking about can not be "both good and bad." It is inherently bad. It coerces and limits a person based on the will of another person. </p><p></p><p>Not unsupported. The outcomes of dominance hierarchies are very well documented. </p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36584407/[/URL]</p><p>"Both high hierarchical disparity and isolation cause stress and health problems."</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18634[/URL]</p><p>"Compared to a condition lacking hierarchy, cooperation declined in the presence of a hierarchy due to a decrease in investment by lower ranked individuals. Furthermore, hierarchy was detrimental to cooperation regardless of whether it was earned or arbitrary."</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.mandtsystem.com/2021/03/08/hierarchy-status-aggression/[/URL]</p><p>"In a dominance hierarchy, the ability to cause physical, emotional, economic, or psychological harm to another is the decisive factor for establishing rank within the social hierarchy .... Social groups that have established dominance hierarchies tend to be inflexible, authoritarian, inequitable, and have higher levels of aggression and ingroup violence."</p><p></p><p>(Note that that last sentence is basically describing a high-abuse environment). </p><p></p><p>I don't believe in "positive control," in the sense that we are discussing control. The very fact of being controlled undermines someone's dignity and agency. It diminishes them. </p><p></p><p>It suggests that when I looked at them before, I could see they were not actually relevant to the point under discussion. But if you just grab a quote, devoid of context, then it becomes pretty meaningless. </p><p></p><p>No, this is discussing a prestige hierarchy. They are talking about differences in status, but not relationships of control. </p><p></p><p>This is not even discussing humans. But the fact that it talks about the hierarchy being maintained by "punishment, threats and behavioural asymmetry" ought to tell us that this is not healthy human behaviour. </p><p></p><p>But what if the hierarchy is, in fact, abusive and controlling by design? Design can be bad. Design deserves to be critiqued and modified as necessary. </p><p></p><p>I don't think so. Pluralism and diversity of thought is incredibly beneficial. And who would decide which way we "need" to think?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77679815, member: 386627"] We've been over this. A dominance hierarchy is one where there are relationships of control. Differences of ability or the like are prestige hierarchies. No; I am basically defining a dominance hierarchy as a relationship in which one person controls another. I disagree. One person controlling another is basically exactly what abuse is. Remember this? [ATTACH type="full"]347815[/ATTACH] That is not what we are talking about. See the above picture. I have told you. Any control which is unnecessary or harmful is abusive. That's too vague to be meaningful. We'd need to take each situation on its merits. But it would certainly need to be radically transformed. Because my main concern in this thread is the abuse of children in the home, and clarifying every other possible situation under the sun is really off topic. We remove the hierarchy from marriage and make it a partnership of equals. That's how we fix the broken system. Not in the sense we are discussing here. In the sense we are discussing here, it is a power difference used to control. If you are not arguing for control (much of which is unnecessary), why are you arguing for hierarchy? I don't think we are speaking about "control" as the same thing, here. The kind of control that I am talking about can not be "both good and bad." It is inherently bad. It coerces and limits a person based on the will of another person. Not unsupported. The outcomes of dominance hierarchies are very well documented. [URL unfurl="true"]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36584407/[/URL] "Both high hierarchical disparity and isolation cause stress and health problems." [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18634[/URL] "Compared to a condition lacking hierarchy, cooperation declined in the presence of a hierarchy due to a decrease in investment by lower ranked individuals. Furthermore, hierarchy was detrimental to cooperation regardless of whether it was earned or arbitrary." [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.mandtsystem.com/2021/03/08/hierarchy-status-aggression/[/URL] "In a dominance hierarchy, the ability to cause physical, emotional, economic, or psychological harm to another is the decisive factor for establishing rank within the social hierarchy .... Social groups that have established dominance hierarchies tend to be inflexible, authoritarian, inequitable, and have higher levels of aggression and ingroup violence." (Note that that last sentence is basically describing a high-abuse environment). I don't believe in "positive control," in the sense that we are discussing control. The very fact of being controlled undermines someone's dignity and agency. It diminishes them. It suggests that when I looked at them before, I could see they were not actually relevant to the point under discussion. But if you just grab a quote, devoid of context, then it becomes pretty meaningless. No, this is discussing a prestige hierarchy. They are talking about differences in status, but not relationships of control. This is not even discussing humans. But the fact that it talks about the hierarchy being maintained by "punishment, threats and behavioural asymmetry" ought to tell us that this is not healthy human behaviour. But what if the hierarchy is, in fact, abusive and controlling by design? Design can be bad. Design deserves to be critiqued and modified as necessary. I don't think so. Pluralism and diversity of thought is incredibly beneficial. And who would decide which way we "need" to think? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Top
Bottom